The Farsight Project. Does this mean the end?

[Liam]

Hi All,

I was reading the Farsight Climate Project RV Sessions last week ... all about impacts and mass displacement of people and chaos, etc...
I think the date was for June 1st 2013.

So, does this mean there will be a meteor impact of some kind in May/June 2013??
Or is it only a probabliliy?

.... Seriously though. Because, the RVers that Courtney Brown used were the senior level, highly experienced ones.

So, just want to know what ye think of the sessions and what it actually means?


8)
Liam

 

[katzenhai2]

I'm a bit baffled by the tasking used in the project... about different timelines where science accept or decline aliens and RV... ???
If nothing happens that is my personal explanation for the wrong project results.

 

[daz]

I was a viewer on this project.
I as did the other viewers - did the rv work triple blind - let me explain this. the targets were locations - we had to describe the locations. The locations were for two time periods 2008, 1013. When we did the rv the targets had not been assigned or chosen yet - they were chosen after all the rv was completed and put online, and were chosen by a completely random process.

Now, we as viewers did have some project data - we knew the project wanted to look at climate data if any was in our sessions form both times (2008 & 2013) but the targets weren't climate data the targets were locations, but knowing that we would also compare climate at those locations - we kind knew to also record this if we could in our RV. remember the targets were locations.

Now, on the 2008 randomly chosen locations I seemed to have done pretty well - even naming one or so?
When analyzing all the viewers data it seemed to be consistent across all th 2008 locations for moderate to no climate change.

This seemed to be different in the location data across the board for all the 2013 rv data.

And again remember the targets were all higglledy piggledy mixed up and randomly chosen AFTER all the viewing had been done - we had no way of knowing if we were looking at a current time zone of a future time zone.

Now I will say this - i have seen a tendency within rv data for viewer and then also analysts to exaggerate rv data - to make it bigger, bolder than it actually is. This is what I feel may have happened in the climate change data. I feel we all as viewers may have picked up increased climate change data in the target locations - but im not sure the destruction we reported will be any where near as high as what will happen. Saying this I have created a site where I am tracking the weather for these locations this year (year of feedback) and to date locations like Sydney are experiencing very extreme weather some like that reported in the sessions: see here for some feedback I have gathered (bottom of the page): http://www.climatechange2013.com/sydney-opera-house-sydney-australia/

All I am saying is keep an open mind, be careful of how people analyze rv data and what it shows and be honest and sensible.
Do i think its the end of the world with meteors and what not - no, but I do believe we predicted quite a bit of bad weather this year and some climate/destruction.

All the best...
Daz

 

[Liam]

8)

Thanks for the update Daz. I see what you mean ... sometimes session info. can be exaggerated.
I have family in ACT, Australia, near enough to Sydney.

They tell me the current flooding and wild fires is the worst the country has seen in a long, long time.
Queensland on the east coast has had the worst flooding on record apparently.

It would be very interesting if there was a Target on DojoPsi something like this:

Describe the major news story on CNN on June 15th 2013

Then, there would be feedback from lots of viewers on a Target that really is totall blind.

Regards,
Liam

 

[daz]

Liam,
the targets we did for Courtney were more than double blind as there weren't any targets chosen when we did the RV and the viewers were some of the best public viewers - im not sure you need more than this really.

 

[Slorri]

Daz, can we really say "more than double blind" when the viewers were informed of the project, general idea and date?

 

[daz]

slorri,

Daz, can we really say "more than double blind" when the viewers were informed of the project, general idea and date?

What did knowing i was doing a project to describe locations tell me for example about the blind location of Sydney harbour that i sketched, described and named? Bearing in mind we didn't know the locations nor in what order they would even appear?

what did knowing we were part of a project looking at two time zone and multiple locations impart that i was no longer blind to the locations?

Daz

 

[Slorri]

You were blind to the locations, but not fully blind to the project idea, that would lessen the amount of blinding to some extent.

I see it like this: If the targets were bind then the scrambling of the targets would not have been necessary, it would not have made them more blind. (There is no more blind than blind).

In this case the scrambling was a good choice because the targets were not totally blind.

I understand that the amount of blinding is technical.
But is it not true that Double Blind means both the viewer and the agent submitting the task to the viewer is totally unaware of what the target is?

 

[alexispoquiz]

Nod nod. I concur with Slorri. Good points.

 

[Loraine]

Much nodding here too ... to my way of thinking the crux of the targets, ie the central as yet unknown answer to the viewing enquiry, is climate change so imo the viewers were not blind.

Courtney responds when challenged about this by saying that being blind to locations makes everything ok ... but that makes no sense logically. If you've already been briefed that the desired info is the climatic conditions, not knowing where these conditions are, doesn't address or counter the direct front loading.

 

[Tunde]

I do have some sympathy for Daz on this project. He was only the viewer and is not
Responsible for setting up the project. He did a great job doing all those targets as did
The other viewers. Its a shame that we are now focusing on how much frontloading
Or level of blindness this project had. Even before the viewing started questions were raised
And I kind of knew no matter what the feedback or outcome it will come back as a main topic of debate.

The thing is ALL of that could have been avoided if the PM had simply just kept it simple by saying NOTHING! Nada ZILTCH and just give the viewers their cords Hell, he could even have simply said targets were locations and it would still be double blind.

Never the less I think its a great project simply because its one everyone gets to see and learn from. Hopefully future projects managers will learn from this and in their eagerness to present exciting new projects nothing is revealed upfront about the project in anyway shape or form prior to viewing. I still get goose bumps whenever I think back to that LA earthquake which struck a few years ago lol ;D

T

 

[Liam]

------------ UPDATE ----------------------

8)

An asteroid is due to come very close to Earth on February 15th; travelling below the level of Satellites.
Luckily though, NASA says there is no chance of it hitting Earth!!

Phew!!!

 

[daz]

You were blind to the locations, but not fully blind to the project idea, that would lessen the amount of blinding to some extent.

I see it like this: If the targets were bind then the scrambling of the targets would not have been necessary, it would not have made them more blind. (There is no more blind than blind).

In this case the scrambling was a good choice because the targets were not totally blind.

I understand that the amount of blinding is technical.
But is it not true that Double Blind means both the viewer and the agent submitting the task to the viewer is totally unaware of what the target is?

And this was the case - i nor any viewer knew what the locations were that we were describing?
this is classed as being BLIND??????????????????
When the SRI team told their viewers that an out bounder would be going somewhere within the San Fransisco area, and it was their job to describe the lcoation - this was also still blind as this information alone does not impart specific information about the target - dont you guys get this yet.

No offence slorri but your are talk silly - when we did the rv on this - there were no targets - targets were not chosen nor created till weeks AFTER we did the RV - you cant get any more blind that rving targets that dont yet exist. Im sorry but you giuys are just plain crazy if you think otherwise.

You are claiming that because I knew it was a project looking at earth locations - that this alone imparted information on targets that didn't exist when I viewed them for it to NOT be BLIND - that then allowed me to nail every single one of the 2008 targets even naming some?

Much nodding here too ... to my way of thinking the crux of the targets, ie the central as yet unknown answer to the viewing enquiry, is climate change so imo the viewers were not blind.

The viewers had to describe locations and keep an eye out for any climate data - but if we didn't describe accurate locations then any data wouldn't matter - this is BLIND RV - you guys need to get off your butts and read the articles form Joe and people using this thing in the real world - front loading is only so if it imparts specific information.

Its like saying that when I do a missing person case - its not blind - because the mere fact that I know Im looking for a person tells me so much that I'm not blind - let alone that the target may be one of BILLIONS - how can this not be a blind target?

Daz

 

[Loraine]

Daz you've said it here yourself in a million different ways -if you want full credibility making RV claims you need to be told the coordinate number only. It's that simple. It's a red herring to argue over what was revealed, nothing should have been.

 

[Slorri]

There might be cause for the RV community to get together and decide what is the degrees of blinding.

 

[daz]

Daz you've said it here yourself in a million different ways -if you want full credibility making RV claims you need to be told the coordinate number only. It's that simple. It's a red herring to argue over what was revealed, nothing should have been.

Lorraine i didn't even get a coordinate (they didnt exist when we did the sessions) all i knew was it was a project where id have to describe locations - Im sorry but that's blind - i do not need to argue any further - if you guys believe that this told me SPECIFIC details about the locations themselves that i didn't get form PSI then what can I say????

And Lorriane - in the real world you cant, wont, and dont get people to participate in projects by saying -'hey i have this great project idea, cant tell you what its about, trust me'. It just does not happen - even Joe McMoneagle knows when hes doing a missing perosn case - and he still classes this as being BLIND.

There might be cause for the RV community to get together and decide what is the degrees of blinding.

Already have - this was discussed in the 8 martinis with Joe McMonegale.

 

[Loraine]

"all i knew was it was a project where id have to describe locations"

Daz ... that's not what has been said (by Courtney repeatedly) - the viewers were told to note climate change is how it's been stated. This is my objection (already said knowing locations is less problematic)

Btw, I'm in the real world and not stupid (you're trying to teach your Grandmother to suck eggs) - what is appropriate to operational or any other different type of RV doesn't necessarily have bearing on this particular research project. In any case, you have to look at every set up/targeting/tasking individually to assess.

I agree Joe knows what he's doing though, 100%! He endorsed my Linked In profile for public speaking recently, obviously he does know what's what!

 

[Slorri]

I'm suggesting that by "coordinate number" we mean here the (random) TRN, target reference number.

 

[daz]

Daz ... that's not what has been said (by Courtney repeatedly) - the viewers were told to note climate change is how it's been stated. This is my objection (already said knowing locations is less problematic)

Lorraine, climate data was not really the target but an attribute of it - the targets were locations. We were to describe locations keeping an eye out for any climate related data to include - but none of this would matter if we didn't accurately describe the blind locations.

Daz

 

[daz]

From Dick Allgire on the Star Gaet emal list:

I put this together quickly today. I need to go through the work of the other viewers, but this is interesting. This highlights the work of the HRVG viewers.

http://rense.com/general95/Russian_Meteor_Event.pdf